S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E O N F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D . 61 r< 7 case was reserved from Granard to Longford, and on consulting the Act of Mr. G. Gardiner Parliament, admitted in Longford." ' 773-- He was admitted under the same circumstances?— Under the same 28 March 1838. circumstances. 7733-^ Chairman.'] Simply on his- certificate, without any examination of himself ?— Without any examination of himself. 7734. Or any evidence on his behalf ?— Or any evidence on his behalf. 7735- Mr. O'Connell] Or any evidence offered against him ?— Only the same as before. 7736. But no evidence respecting the value?— No investigation as to the value whatever. 7737. And no evidence offered against him of under- value?— The value would not be gone into by the court at all. 7738. Did you offer any evidence ?— No. 7739. Mr. Lefroy.] Was the admission of the man upon the certificate, simply objected to ?— It was at Ballymahon ; Mr. Courtenay endeavoured to get it put by, as the man was noticed for that he should bring a new qualification as at first, and the counsel opposite insisted upon its being renewed upon his old certificate. 7740. The barrister would not enter into his qualification?— He would not enter into that. 7741. And the same as to the other ?— And the same as to the other. 7742. Mr. O'Connell] That is, he required no other evidence from the man but his certificate ?— No other evidence. 7743. And there was 110 contrary evidence attempted to be adduced, except that the man had been struck off by a Committee of The House of Commons ?— None. 7744. Mr. Lefroy.] Was the ground upon which he had been struck off by the Committee, namely, want of value, stated to the barrister ?— It was. 7745. That he had been struck off by the Committee upon proof of want of value ?— Yes. 7746. And he refused to admit that evidence?— He did. 7747. Chairman.] Was that man originally admitted by Mr. Tighe, or by some other revising barrister ?— By another revising barrister. 7748. Mr. O'Connell.] He refused to admit evidence of what had happened before the Committee ?— Yes. 7749. Mr. Lefroy.] Were there any other cases of the same description?— Not of that kind. 7750. Did Mr. Tighe admit any persons who had been rejected by Mr. French ?— He admitted about 30 claimants who had been rejected by Mr. French, and other barristers. 7751. Had you attended at the rejection of those persons by other barristers ? — I had. " ' 7752. Did they give evidence of a better qualification before Mr. Tighe than they had adduced before the former barristers who had rejected them ?— I do not think that in any case they did; they had exactly the same qualification as they formerly produced. 7753. Mr. O'Connell] Have you notes of each of those cases?— I have. 7754. Upon what principle did Mr. Tighe profess to admit those men who had been rejected by former barristers ?— He admitted them upon the principle that he did not act bv the solvent tenant test. 7755. That he dicf not consider the proper test to be, what a good and solvent tenant could afford to pay for the farm ?— Yes. 7756. But what the man himself swore to be the value of it?— What the claimant himself swore to be the value of it. 7757. Mr. O'Connell.] That is, he adopted the beneficial interest test ?— What is called the beneficial interest test. 7758. Mr. Lefroy.] And he made the criterion of that what the man himself swore the farm was worth to him ?— Exactly. 7759. Mr. O'Connell] Do you mean to say that he refused to hear any evi- dence to contradict what the man swore ?— He did, in many instances. 643. 1 ' 77< 3o. Can